Could the Bedroom Tax be about to go pear-shaped?

As there is clearly a problem with a shortage os smaller, suitable houses/flats for people whose family has grown up and left to move to- why are we not fighting for these to be built, with suitable infrastructure, transport, etc (and so that groups of friends can move together)?

As Aka says, the damage done to families and children living in bedsits is comparatively much worse than that of moving to smaller accom for retirees with grown-up children- surely? Instead of using the lack of suitable smaller accom as an excuse- why not tackle the issue and solve this (true) lack of suitable accom? Yes, I am afraid it does apply to social housing, and not to private, as aka says. People in private housing are indeed NOT protected from having to downsize at all- I know so many who have had to do so to finance themselves in retirement, as they are not entitled to help or will prefer to make sacrifices in order not to have to ask. As said before, some find clever ways or alleviating the problem- like taking a suitable lodger, perhaps in exchange for help and support with a low rent (as we did ourselves in the past- and yes that meant sharing a bathroom- not the end of the world), etc.

And of course, special circumstances have to be taken into account. But there is no reason someone should have a spare room so a relative or friend can come to stay once in a blue moon, as was argued before.

No Granjura, I know that people in private housing often have to make difficult decisions based on affordability.
However - and I'm deliberately playing Devil's advocate here - couldn't it be argued that those homeowners who live in homes that are larger than they need are limiting the supply of family-size houses, thus inflating the prices and making it harder for those further down the housing ladder to move up into suitable accommodation? Overcrowding doesn't just exist in the social sector, does it?

Now I'll sit back and wait to be shot down! fear emoticon

I accept the 'nowhere to go' argument, it's a strong one. But then it still means that desperate families have nowhere to go either. So where does that leave them?

Second point, yes, we should confine this discussion to social housing. In my county alone there are 13,000 new homes being built, in all shapes and sizes. Mainly, I read, because there are more single occupancy households (1 in 3) than ever before. Doesn't sound that overcrowded.

We downsized from a five bedroomed house to a two bedroomed bungalow.
My husband was disabled and had problems using the shower room, so he drew up plans to turn the second bedroom into a walk-in shower room for him, as the bathroom was too small to get a wheelchair in.
Unfortunately, before the builder was appointed, he died.
If I was in social housing, I would be asked to move or pay extra rent on the spare bedroom. This would have been asked even if my husband was st9ill alive if we had two bedrooms. I admit it would have been very unusual to have two bathrooms and only one bedroom, but when you have someone in the house who is doubly incontinent, it's a problem only having one toilet.
I think it is just plainly wrong to expect someone in the same situation to pay more just because they have not been able to buy their own property.
No, I do not think we should confine this discussion to social housing, because we should all be able to put ourselves in someone else's shoes.

Empathy is what makes us a society. This government is good at dividing us.

I agree that there should be more smaller houses built. Builders build four-bedroom houses on a smaller footprint by using the loft space. They were supposed to be building houses that were suitable from cradle to grave. But they get more money for building bigger units on the same area, with comparatively less cost.
However, I think it is wrong that anyone should be expected to live in one bedroomed flats just because they are on their own. There are very few one-bedroomed flats available from any decade. They were just not built.
Aka, I gave you the figures earlier. 660,000 households expected to downsize, but only 375,000 families in overcrowded housing. Why do you feel more sorry for those in overcrowded accommodation than for those being forced out of the houses they have brought their families up in just because they have paid rent all their working lives?

MamaCaz, I totally hear what you are saying. And I am really sorry to hear about your DH Durhamjen- and of course a second bathroom was essential in your circumstances.

Empathy is for all though- and the plight of families in overcrowded flats and B&Bs deserve empathy too, don't they? I am afraid life is not fair- and social housing or benefits are about providing a safe place to live in comfort- but not about extra bedrooms for occasional guests, craft rooms, trainsets or nicknacks. Many in private housing to have the luxury of those- but not all that is for sure. But that is life, I am afraid.

So, let's focus on the lack of suitable housing, and fight for this to be built asap, with the proper infrastructure- instead of fighting this so-called 'tax' (and I do not think it is a tax at all). This 'tax' was introduced without any proper thought and empathy- and is unworkable in its present form- which does not mean it is bad per se, with the proper exclusions and building programme in place.

Again, people in private housing often have to downsize or make true sacrifices- which maybe very stressful and uncomfortable. Nobody turns up to replace your roof or boiler in private housing, that is for sure. Why should people in social housing be protected way beyond those in private housing, who do pay tax on size and type of property btw.

The problem is that house building is happening in the private sector, not social housing because this government again has made a hash of its housing policy and thrown money at house buyers, paid for out of our taxes. Guaranteeing people taking out new mortgages 20% of the purchase price comes out of taxes.
Why could they not just give that money to councils to build new council housing, two bedroomed to allow for people on their own or couples to downsize? Of course, they do not like council housing, do they?
Granjura, I've given you the figures twice. 660,000 households affected by the bedroom tax. 375,000 households in overcrowded accommodation. Both wrong, but penalising one group will not help the other. The government does not have the figures yet for how much ectra they have had to pay in rent for people having to move out of a three bedroomed house into one bedroomed private rented accommodation.
Or if it does, it's not telling us.
Got a roofer on the roof at the moment, Granjura. I also keep getting phone calls to say I can have a new boiler. Never follow it through because we had one put in in September 2011.

A good post Granjura you've said exactly what I would have replied. I'll just add, this discussion was getting too one-sided, all about those already housed or even over-housed. Now at least the others have had their side put, if not accepted.

Believe me, Granjura, I do sympathise with families in severely overcrowded accommodation, or worse still, B&Bs. It must be truly awful.

Similarly, I am right behind you in the fight to have proper suitable housing and infrastructure built.

Where we differ is on how we view the other social tenants in all this. They have been made a scapegoat by this Government IMO, and it simply isn't possible, practical or cost-effective to keep shuffling people around every year or so in an attempt to maximise occupancy.

The bedroom tax (and I will continue to call it that because it is still the most widely-used term) was an ill thought out policy, and is rapidly becoming the disaster that many of us predicted from the start.

But the government says it is not a bedroom tax but a spare room tax. So if you have a house with a living room and separate dining room but only one bedroom and there are only one or two people living in it, it would still be deemed that you had too many rooms and you would need to trade down to a home with only one living room.

It doesn't matter what anyone calls it - it is the regulations that matter, and they say that this deduction can only be levied on a bedroom!

Knock down the wall between the living room and the dining room?
I never thought about that. That's what has been done in my bungalow, so if it was as originally built, I would have had two spare rooms and would have been asked to pay an extra £27 per week if I had been living in rented accommodation. There'd be no wine then, would there?

Your original post was about the definition of bedroom, Mamacaz.
Another problem is that those getting housing benefit continuously from 1996 are supposed to be protected from this bill, but many have been turfed out of their council houses.
Both of these were missed by IDS.
He has made a real pig's ear of bringing in universal credit which should have been in everywhere by now according to his timetable.
He has wasted billions on IT systems which were not fit for purpose.
Why is he still in a job?

Jen tenants cannot knock down walls!

I agree Caz the bedroom tax was ill thought out and ill researched - otherwise it would have been clear that a 'spare' bedroom is a necessity for a sinnificant proportion of the population. Two or three spare rooms though are a different matter especially when there families waiting to be housed.

As regards to the private sector. We are, as had been already said, paying for the privilege of living in larger houses through council tax. Although that too was rushed through at the time and many properties are in the wrong band.

It is difficult when you've spent a lifetime saving and scheming to get further and further up the housing ladder to give up what you've achieved and down size, leaving behind memories of family etc. We did. It took two years of systematic sorting to shrink our possessions and another two to find somewhere. It's been a great success and very liberating.

I think things are changing and it's slowly becoming socially unacceptable for a couple or single person to live in a large house with several unused rooms whether in the private or public sector.

There are people I know who live in big houses while their sons and daughters are squeezing their families into shoeboxes, all privately owned.
I have often wondered if the family home is so important to be kept in the family, why not just swap?

Status.

Yes, Durhamjen, my original post was about the definition of bedroom.

The judge has ruled that a bedroom is " a room furnished with a bed and/or used for sleeping in", so hopefully as long as said room does not fit that definition, it shouldn't matter how many walls have been knocked out or left in.

(I'm sure that with the permission of the landlord such things will have been done over the years. Permission is sometimes granted for tenants to carry out quite major changes if it is deemed beneficial to the property.)

But doesn't this highlight the idiocy of the bedroom tax? Someone could, at their own expense, have turned a large bedroom into two or more separate ones and now be penalised for this, while their neighbour with an identically-sized house is spared?

And I suppose inertia. Why down size? Takes a lot of effort to sort through in our case 35 years of accumulated junk - and ours wasn't that big a house - just had a lot of sheds. As long as you can afford the heating bills why move?

Moving from the 'bedroom' tax. This is what so silly about so many of those reports about older people 'under-occupying' properties they live in. They always talk in terms of spare bedrooms, without defining what a bedroom is, and seem to forget that many people of all ages 'under-occupy' their houses, in the sense that there have more rooms in their house than the minimum the state will pay you occupy, yet visit any of these 'under-occupied' houses and you will find every room in use.

From previous threads we know that Gransnetters have rooms for DGC's regular stopovers, for sewing, painting and all sorts of other uses. nJust because we have more rooms than a state defined minimum doesn't mean to say they are unused.

I suppose we downsized slowly because in the middle we had a guest house, so although the house was quite big, the furniture in many of the rooms was not in use by us, except when the kids and their families came for holidays and Christmas. Handy having all those toilets and showers at the time.
We downsized properly after my husband kept losing his balance on the back staircase and falling through the glass firedoor.
If people live to be as old as they are supposed to, many will need to downsize eventually, and it's surely better to do it when you can, rather than when you have to.
Again it comes back to the idea of there being two kinds of people, those who own their own homes and those in social housing. Those in social housing can be moved around, but those who have bought their own can live in as big a house as they want, not need.
Sounding Marxist here, aren't I?

Yes, if I own my house it is mine to do what I want with (pedants' excuse grammar). End of argument.

Don't know about only Marxist but do know the Nazis forcibly removed Jewish families from their houses to ghettoes, so it seems as if both extremes of the political spectrum are culpable.

Yes Aka. As long as you can afford to look after it and pleeeeese don't whitter on to your friends about the horrendous heating costs, the amount you had to spend out on new curtains, the hourly rate the gardener charges, etc, etc

I was born and brought up in a seven bedroomed Victorian house. My grandmother persuaded my parents to buy it so that if they were short of money, they could always have lodgers. She gave them the money for the deposit.
My parents lived there until my mum was 65. They then moved into a one bedroomed flat owned by a housing association. Lots of the rooms were unused because they could not afford the heating and even the lighting in some of the rooms. This time of year it would be freezing.
However, it was useful because they sold it to the same housing association and it was turned into bedsits for youngsters leaving carehomes, to teach them how to cope in the real world.
Everyone involved thought it was a brilliant solution to a housing problem. In fact there was an article about it in the local paper.
Anyone live in a house big enough to do this?